Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan Initial Consultation (Regulation 18) Incorporating Issues and Options
Response by The Chesham Society Including “A Vision of Chesham”
14 March 2016 INDEX
Page No.
PART A - PERSONAL DETAILS 3
PART B - COMMENTS 4
PREAMBLE 4
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 4
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 14
A VISION OF CHESHAM 26
APPENDICES
1. Responses to the New Local Plan Workshop held at 29 Chesham Town Hall, 25 February 2016
2. Response to the Local Plan Initial Consultation (regulation 18), 38 Chiltern District Council Local Plan 2014 – 2036 6 March 2015
3. DVD of “A Vision of Chesham”, 47
2 PART B – COMMENTS
PREAMBLE Representations submitted to the earlier Chiltern District Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation (January 2015 to March 2015) by The Chesham Society dated 6 March 2015 are still valid and we request they be considered in addition to this current Representation. (Attached Appendix 2).
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
This Response is submitted by Chesham Society with the underlying motives of improving the economic vitality of Chesham Town, welcoming new housing and employment, and acknowledging the importance of having the Local Plan adopted within Central Government timescales. We hope that there will be sufficient positive elements within the Local Plan that will stand as a Neighbourhood Plan for Chesham.
The Chesham Society has publicised the Consultation widely throughout Chesham with a view to collecting a strong evidence base. Every household has received a leaflet with outline information. Several public meetings have been held including a joint meeting with the Town Council. The input to workshops has been analysed and the results form part of this report.
Our “Vision of Chesham”, a proposal for the redevelopment of the Chesham Town Centre, should be treated as an integral part of our Response to this Plan Consultation. The “Vision of Chesham” is included on a DVD and has been posted on YouTube, which to date has attracted over 760 hits.
We see Infrastructure as the major constraint on the deliverability of any expansion and address this issue first.
4 INFRASTRUCTURE
Planning Practice Guidance – Local Plans “The Local Plan should make clear, for at least the first five years, what infrastructure is required, who is going to fund and provide it, and how it relates to the anticipated rate and phasing of development. This may help in reviewing the plan and in development management decisions. For the later stages of the plan period less detail may be provided as the position regarding the provision of infrastructure is likely to be less certain.”
It is clear that Infrastructure in its widest sense has reached a tipping point in Chesham. The evidence provided by the widely expressed views of the community is set out in another section of the Response.
The Infrastructure Capacity Study finds “all of the settlements have considerable existing infrastructure pressures”. “Acceptance of increased levels of congestion” is not an option. We agree that “as a result of the work to date, the scope for accommodating future potential growth in population or housing in these settlements seems very limited unless further growth can be accompanied by increases in infrastructure capacity. It cannot simply be assumed that additional capacity will automatically be created in response to the growth associated with the local plan.”
Over the next months intensive negotiation is required with providers in order to satisfy the requirements set out in Planning Practice Guidance.
The requirements for and constraints of infrastructure are wide ranging and include but not exclusively:
HIGHWAYS
The road system cannot cope with more through traffic or local traffic. It is a remarkable omission that there is no traffic survey amongst the huge array of reports prepared for this Consultation. That a critical point has been reached is regularly demonstrated when a minor accident brings the Town and surrounding areas to a standstill.
Noted from the Infrastructure Capacity survey: “A416 road through Chesham is a priority congestion management corridor in Bucks CC’s Local Transport Plan (LTP3). Other main roads in / towards the town congested (LTP fig 4.6) Capacity does not currently take account of the future growth implications from the new Local Plan. Capacity to be investigated further as part of the transport modelling for the new Local Plan. Potential for measures within the review of the LTP.”
We therefore expect to see some statistical information in the next Consultation and for this to be reflected in any proposals for new development.
5 WATER
Planning Practice Guidance - Water supply, wastewater and water quality – considerations in plan making
“Plan-making may need to consider: • Identifying suitable sites for new or enhanced infrastructure. In identifying sites it will be important to recognise that water and wastewater infrastructure sometimes has particular locational needs (and often consists of engineering works rather than new buildings) which mean otherwise protected areas may exceptionally have to be considered where consistent with their designation. Plan-making will also need to take into account existing and proposed development in the vicinity of a location under consideration for water and wastewater infrastructure.
• Phasing new development so that water and wastewater infrastructure will be in place when needed.”
The statement by Affinity Water quoted in the Infrastructure Capacity Study would imply that no new development can start before 2025:
“We are undertaking a joint study with Thames Water on the Upper Chess to identify if there is an impact of our abstraction on groundwater levels and hence river flows. If an impact is identified we will undertake an options appraisal and cost benefit analysis. Should this work conclude a positive cost - benefit proposals for reduction may be included for public consultation in our next Water resources Management Plan that is due for publication in 2018.Any implementation scheme would then be included in AMP7 (2020 -2025)”
Unlike other rivers in the District the upper reaches of the River Chess ran dry in August 2015. The river above Town Bridge did not start flowing until late February 2016. The branch at Townsend Road is still not flowing on 12.03.2016. There is only one possible reason for this – there is already over abstraction of water. There has been a 50% increase in abstraction in recent years. Unless other sources can be identified this is a major constraint on early development.
6 SEWAGE
Thames Water is regularly discharging excess sewage into the River Chess. Others (including the River Chess Association) will no doubt elaborate on the effect of this on a rare chalk stream environment. Sufficient here to repeat again “the River Chess should not be an extension of the Town drainage system”. Quoting from Thames Water Drainage Strategy, Chesham, June 2015; “The foul sewerage system in Chesham has become overwhelmed in some locations for weeks at a time in recent years.” Unfortunately they also go on to say when addressing future challenges: “Little development is planned around Chesham.” There would appear to be a necessity of some better cooperation between CDC and Thames Water. They are currently at the stage of “gathering data” with a view to identifying “cost beneficial enhancements”.
The Environment Agency letter of 8 January included in the Evidence Base deserves mention here. “There is no consideration throughout the document (Lepus) of how the waste water and drainage infrastructure requirements of future developments and population expansions will be met without adversely affecting the water environment, whether there is a need for new sewerage infrastructure and whether this needs to be explored in further detail.” “There are significant groundwater flooding issues in the Local Plan Area and these have barely been mentioned”
Quoting Thames Water in the Infrastructure Capacity Study: “Chesham and Gerrard’s Cross require site wide upgrades to enhance process capabilities - programmed to take place from 2015–2020” suggests new development should be phased to take place after 2020.
We maintain that this topic is another constraint on further early development until enhancements have been put in place.
FLOODING
From the Infrastructure Capacity Study:
“Chesham Flood Alleviation Scheme – project already started and outputs to be delivered by 2021. Land may be required in Chesham town for the scheme” and “Concern from a flooding point of view where significant pinch points currently exist e.g. in Chesham and Chalfont St Peter in relation to culverts and in relation to the capacity and design of the foul sewer system”
We can only hope that these issues will be addressed in the next Preferred Options Consultation.
7 SCHOOLS
Statement from Bucks County Council Education in the Infrastructure Capacity Study:
“At present three of the four primary planning areas and all secondary schools in Chiltern are at capacity with little flexibility to allow for volatility in parental choice or population migration. In addition based on the 2014 Housing Trajectory and the level of planning permissions as at 30.4.2014 all primary planning areas in Chiltern District will be at capacity by 2018/19 And based on the same data all secondary school planning areas in Chiltern will be at capacity by 2022/23 (this longer time horizon is due to it taking longer for changes to be carried forward to secondary school age groups This estimate takes account of additional capacity recently provided at four primary schools and two secondary schools in Chiltern. Additional capacity in the early stages of planning at one other primary school and two secondary schools in Chiltern will not enable sufficient capacity to address potential growth over that shown in the 2014 Trajectory and outstanding permissions.”
We are aware of pupils in Chesham this year being offered secondary school places in Princes Risborough. This is obviously unsustainable and we would expect further up to date information in the Consultation later this year to be reflected in the phasing of any proposed development.
HERITAGE
Heritage in its widest sense is a high priority for the Chesham Society and from our consultations equally important to the community. Our Vision of bringing together the new town and the old town will enhance the historic importance of the market area and surrounding conservation area.
A masterplan for Chesham is the best way of preserving and enhancing our Heritage asset as opposed to potential erosion by piecemeal planning applications. The extensive response to the “environment and conservation” section of our Workshop summary details many individual views on Heritage.
GP’s AND HEALTH
Quoting from Amersham & Chesham GP Locality Profile:
“The area in and around Chesham is in the most deprived fifth of the population for Bucks. They have poorer health and lower life expectancy than the Bucks average” “a higher proportion of people received job seeker’s allowance in Chesham Local Area (2.4%), compared to 1.9% in Bucks. This also applied for those receiving disability living allowance (Chesham: 3.0%, Bucks: 2.7%), pension credits which provide a minimum guaranteed income for those aged
8 60+ (Chesham: 12.5%, Bucks 11.2%) and for lone parents on income support (Chesham: 1.2%, Bucks 0.9%).” “Chesham Local Area is more ethnically diverse than the rest of the locality.” “Parts of Chesham had higher levels of child poverty than the rest of the locality”.
We are not suggesting that a Local Plan will resolve these issues, but when considering the location of new or enhanced facilities the current imbalance should be taken into account.
From the Infrastructure Capacity Study:
“Overall pressure on existing GP resources across the catchment area – severe difficulty of recruitment for GPs and locums. Lack of nurses. This lack of staff is part of the wider picture of increase in the proportion of elderly persons, increase in the average age of GPs, lack of new recruits. There would be additional pressures on already stretched healthcare if housing levels increased Even if new development could deliver new infrastructure for GPs, e.g. new surgeries, etc there would still be a severe problem in ensuring that there would be GPs available to deliver the service.”
Further Consultation on this issue is obviously necessary in the next stage.
Infrastructure - summary of comments
We do not accept CDC comments from the previous consultation that infrastructure is the responsibility of statutory authorities and they have a duty to perform their statutory obligations. If it cannot be demonstrated in the Local Plan that essential infrastructure will be provided within given timescales then development must be deferred.
Planning Practice Guidance “Where the deliverability of critical infrastructure is uncertain then the plan should address the consequences of this, including possible contingency arrangements and alternative strategies. The key infrastructure requirements on which delivery of the plan depends should be contained in the Local Plan itself.”
Despite all of the issues identified above we are aware that progress must be made with the provision of housing and we will be happy to work with CDC with the phasing and location of development to fit within the constraints of progress with infrastructure improvement.
9 GREEN BELT
Despite a previous Core Strategy Inspector stating that no Green Belt review was necessary, Chiltern District Council decided to conduct a review in 2013 and found that there was no case to merit changes to Green Belt boundaries. The five purposes in the National Planning Policy Framework have not changed but no evidence has been produced of factors that have changed since 2013 to support a fresh review.
The Statistics produced in the HEDNA and HELAA conclude that there will be a shortfall in housing provision thus there are exceptional circumstances for a review of the Green Belt. There is however no evidence that releasing any land from Green Belt will result in increased housing numbers.
On the contrary, house builders nationally are holding land stock for 600,000 units, mostly with planning consent. These houses will be built when developers’ determine the time is right, to meet their financial objectives, or maybe when the necessary skills are available. Planning authorities will not influence their profit based decisions. Indeed, despite the current very high demand, in February residential building slowed to its weakest growth rate since June 2013 when Britain was pulling out of recession.
The only way that the planning authority can directly influence the supply of housing is by participating in a major development scheme such as proposed by the Chesham Society.
Releasing land from Green Belt might simply divert developers away from more sustainable Town Centre sites but total numbers will not increase.
The Green Belt functions as a whole, not as a sum of artificial parcels. We understand the reasons for testing the continued inclusion of some areas within the Green Belt but we believe that further analysis is required into what appear to be inconsistencies in methodology used by Arup. The chosen methodology is to divide the Green Belt into strategic land parcels for assessment using durable, significant and strong physical boundaries. In the case of parcel 13a this produces a small parcel which is given a low score. If this parcel were to be included with 13b there would be a different outcome but the approach remains inflexible. Contrast this with 22a where it is suggested the defined area should be split and is referred to as a sub area which plays little role in the context of the wider Green Belt. So there is no flexibility with 19a but with 22a willingness to relax the parcel methodology and consider in the context of the wider Green Belt.
It is very unsubstantial evidence to define a small parcel such as 13a and then to conclude that it only makes a small contribution to the NPPF purposes. Similarly with parcel 15 when creating a small sub area (RSA-6) it is not good evidence to conclude that it will perform weakly. Nor in the case of this parcel is it clear from the map provided how a boundary is established to comply with para 4.3.3 of the Arup report. In the Arup comments on RSA-7 reference is made to the negative effects of playing fields yet elsewhere in the Consultation (4.7) there are proposals to relocate such spaces to the Green Belt. Some ‘joined-up thinking’ is required in the next round of work.
10 It is easy to conclude that using their original methodology Arup were able to identify very little Green Belt that did not fulfil NPPF purposes. Therefore they have resorted to sub dividing parcels to produce a result that will justify releasing more Green Belt land but to the considerable detriment of the whole.
As stated in the report conclusion “The Green Belt in Buckinghamshire has, since its original designation, played a crucial role in preventing the outward sprawl of Greater London, as well as other large built-up areas throughout Buckinghamshire; maintaining the county’s settlement pattern; ensuring the continued openness of the countryside; and protecting the unique rural context of the county’s historic towns. It is striking that, many years after its original designation, the Green Belt continues to perform these roles so strongly.” Yet now with a piecemeal approach an attempt is being made to destroy this important asset.
In the Consultation document a large area to the North East of Chesham is identified for further testing. We do not agree in principle with looking at just one large space but would rather see testing and potential release of smaller parcels around the Town Centre. Additionally when testing Green Belt against the NPPF purposes it is equally important to have regard to sustainability. Unfortunately we feel that Lepus reporting (p 49) on the current Chesham area of search “It is uncertain whether the districts’ contribution to climate change will increase as a result of development. Congestion is not predicted to become an issue for the area due to the variety of sustainable transport modes provided at local and regional scale”. This is completely misinformed. Local transport is restricted to occasional daytime buses and to reach any other form of transport will require travel to the congested Town Centre, probably along Berkhamsted Road, an “Air Quality Management Area”. A large scale proposal for housing off Lye Green Road was turned down at appeal on highway grounds because of the restricted access to the town centre using White Hill or Eskdale Avenue.
We have frequently requested a traffic survey, without success, but the congestion is evident to anyone using the Town. Adding to this with a large block of housing on the periphery of Chesham is unsustainable.
11 HOUSING
There is currently no available target for the number of houses to be built in Chesham; however given that it is unlikely to be 15,100 houses, or no houses, then at some point CDC will be making an assessment on what is a fair distribution of new dwellings. We have been working on a figure of 1,000 new homes in Chesham, an informed but probably conservative target, but hopefully a reasonable share of the District’s total for the Town to be asked to accommodate.
The October 2015 HEDNA suggests that housing delivery should be adjusted according to Market Signals, in particular indicators relating to price. Local house prices last year are summarized below (source Rightmove)
Chesham, overall average price of £371,095 Amersham, overall average price of £534,783 Chalfont St. Peter, overall average price of £640,490 Great Missenden, overall average price of £669,415 Little Chalfont, overall average price of £705,150 Chalfont St. Giles, overall average price of £764,828 (Berkhamsted, overall average price of £562,029)
Using the same methodology as in the HEDNA would indicate that housing provision in Chesham should be substantially and proportionately lower than in the rest of Chiltern.
The Local Plan for Chesham should therefore not concentrate on adding housing numbers but renewal of some of the town’s more deprived estates and housing stock.
We have submitted our “Vision of Chesham” and this includes opportunities for substantial amounts of new housing in the town centre. As this scheme is developed we expect to see high density, multi storey accommodation near to the station. This area will also be suitable for affordable housing and accommodation for elderly people.
Our preference will be for all new housing to be in or near the centre, being more sustainable and avoiding loss of Green Belt. The statement in the Consultation Document that “although Green Belt land may be identified as an option for removal from the Green Belt at this stage this does not mean that if removed it will necessarily be appropriate for development or development potential may be limited” is particularly relevant to Chesham. Any Green Belt land offered to developers is likely to be more profitable for them to develop and will detract from concentrating on the Town Centre. This emphasises the need for a Chesham Master Plan.
12 EMPLOYMENT
The Consultation Document quotes broad findings from the earlier Consultation as “support for a restructuring of Chesham employment base through identifying new employment space on the edge of the town in the Green Belt”. The Chesham Society’s previously expressed view was “A new Business Park should be established on the periphery of the Town, preferably not in the Green Belt, to attract new businesses and encourage some existing users to move out of the centre.” This still applies.
The treatment of “Employment Land” needs to be clearly resolved. It is suggested that where new areas have been identified for Employment Use the requirement to retain existing, particularly redundant, employment land in the vicinity can be relaxed. This will resolve anomalies such as CD0109 in Lycrome Road. The HELAA states that “as the site is within an active employment use the HELAA methodology states that these should be protected, unless evidence to the contrary indicates otherwise. A mixed use scheme could satisfy the need to retain employment, but would result in potentially less housing”. If development is to be permitted on this Green Belt site, housing would be the preferred use with any employment being relocated to a newly designated area. This also avoids potential anomalies such as residential being permitted on the nearby Amersham & Wycombe College site which previously provided employment to numerous people.
13 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
Question 1: Do you have any comments on the definition of housing and functional economic market areas being used, on the draft Buckinghamshire HEDNA or on the needs assessment work planned during the next stages of the Joint Local Plan process?
(n.b. numbering refers to that used in the Local Plan document) 2.3(d). Whilst in general it may be true across much of the area that “there are no significant market relationships between Chiltern/South Bucks and Hertfordshire”, this is not true for Chesham, which is very close to the border of Hertfordshire and the A416 North is the main road outlet. Many residents either work in or use shops, restaurants and entertainment venues in Berkhamsted, Hemel Hempstead and Watford. Children also commute to schools. There is much evidence that properties in Chesham are of interest to Hertfordshire residents. For example a significant number of new units at the Amersham and Wycombe College development were acquired by Berkhamsted residents who found the lower Chesham prices attractive.
2.3 (e) Following from the previous paragraph we strongly disagree with this statement and consider that the “best-fit” must include parts of Dacorum and that this should be reconsidered.
Question 2: Do you have any comments on the draft HELAA, particularly in relation to whether included sites are likely to be deliverable by 2036 and whether additional sites should be added?
It is noted that that some Appendix 1 sites excluded following the Stage 1 Assessment may be the subject of further testing and if ‘successful’ we would welcome the opportunity to comment should this occur.
We are not currently aware of any sites to add to Appendix 2 however as the Call for Sites is still open we will submit information if anything suitable is identified.
We believe some of the comments in Appendix 3 are understandably pessimistic and that further research will bring some of the sites into the Achievable category.
Similarly in Appendix 4 we would expect to see some deliverability in the timescale of the Plan.
Question 3: Are there existing uses not currently identified in the HELAA and within the built-up areas that may be surplus to requirements or where the existing use could be consolidated or re-provided elsewhere such as open spaces, sports and leisure uses?
If a suitable Sporting complex is identified in the Plan, Chesham cricket, rugby and football clubs may be interested in relocating. The Chiltern Harriers AC, with over 600 members does not have its own training facility anywhere in the District. Swimming and gymnasiums are adequately catered for. This comment is offered without any consultation.
14 Question 4: Do you agree with the approach to the Joint Local Plan Vision and Objectives and if not what changes or additions do you consider are needed? Please explain your reasoning for suggesting any alterations.
We again support the Vision and Objectives for Chiltern and South Bucks and hope that lack of resources will not result in neglecting of longer term vision and objectives, which are even more pertinent now that the whole plan is very much focussed on housing numbers to the possible, albeit probable detriment of all else. Particular focus will be needed now planning policy guides state infrastructure capacity must be in place before new housing is built and lack of available space is not a presumption for building on the Green Belt.
Housing delivery in the first five years of the Plan must be supplied and it will be all too easy to say that an uplift of, say, 10% can be accommodated within the current infrastructure resource, which is not the case for Chesham, where many infrastructure components are not coping with existing housing.
There is also an element of inevitability appearing that some Green Belt must be used for housing, with Exceptional Circumstances now having been identified for this plan and leading to testing of strategic land parcels, some of which adjoin Chesham, being progressed for further testing. In actual fact only portions of parcels are being considered in even more artificial subdivisions.
This loses sight of the overall purpose of the Green Belt which can only be achieved when viewed in its entirety. Attrition over a period, especially around the edges will inevitably mean the Green Belt cannot fulfil its purpose. The only robust policy is no development on the Green Belt.
Retention of employment sites has been addressed in detail elsewhere and is ranked by the Chesham Society in importance alongside retention of Green Belt and Infrastructure as the key drivers for the Plan in relation to Chesham to achieve local Sustainability. Employment in Chesham has three drivers, retaining and creating employment opportunities, attracting workers and housing them. Workers will come and stay if there are jobs and houses. Much of this Plan is focussed on houses. Types of jobs are changing from manufacture (boots, beer and brushes) to high technology, IT, design, consultants etc. A need has been identified for an innovation centre and a facility was in part built in Moor Road but not promoted so it has not been successful. The Councils must set up a properly structured local organisation to attract businesses to Chesham. This has been highly successful in other areas of the country.
There is a statement in the earlier findings that “HS2 is not a local plan matter” so it is ignored and dismissed. This is not acceptable and the words “head in the sand” spring to mind. It is almost certain that HS2 will proceed, albeit there will ongoing negotiation about compensation and final construction details, most significantly about tunnel length. Construction is likely to take place over ten years, 2018 to 2028, 50% of the Plan period. This will have a profound effect on the Chilterns and Chesham. It will have a major effect on infrastructure, especially roads which will not cope with extra traffic, in particular diversion of current local traffic off the A413 onto more minor roads (e.g A416 and A428 through Chesham, which are close to capacity now) to make way for HS2 construction
15 traffic. Inevitably HS2 sub-contractor traffic also will use these local roads. There will substantial impact on other infrastructure from the effect of a large workforce moving into the area on a semi-permanent basis.
HS2 Ltd will also end up with ownership of a substantial amount of land along the route, some of which they will wish to dispose of in the future for housing or commercial use. This will almost all be in the AONB and local control of this land disposal and planning authorisation is likely to prove problematic.
HS2 must not be ignored in this Plan. The effect on Chesham will be very substantial and could overshadow the other considerations in this new Local Plan.
Question 5: What spatial strategy option or options do you think the Council should consider and what should be the priority order? Are there any other spatial strategy options that the Joint Plan should consider and why?
Our survey results (February 2015) submitted with the previous consultation response are still applicable, which for convenience are included here:
Spatial strategy - item 2.10 in the CDC Consultation Document – the specific poll responses were:
Change of use of employment sites to housing with potential loss of jobs 30% Increased building densities e.g. higher flats 24% New sites on the edge of town 21% Mix of all three above 25%
In addition when asked “Should sites on the Green Belt be considered?” 75% said No, 3% Yes, and the balance saying “no but” or “exceptionally, last resort”.
This was discussed again in breakout groups at the Town Meeting on 25.02.16 and these confirmed that there has not been a significant change in public opinion in the meantime.
In summary our evidence supports the previous Chiltern District Council findings on Spatial Strategy namely Option a), to some extent b) and protection of the Green Belt was still very important, although some residents were resigned to some loss, especially as urban extensions.
We are not convinced that Exceptional Circumstances have been demonstrated to release Green Belt around Chesham. We are still persuaded that demand can be met by more efficient use of land within the centre. A balanced view is needed giving equal weight to the quality of life for existing residents and the need for new housing.
16 4.3 The statement that “the consultation highlighted support for a restructuring of Chesham employment base through identifying new employment space on the edge of the town in the Green Belt” does not correctly represent the Chesham Society’s previously expressed view which was “A new Business Park should be established on the periphery of the Town, preferably not in the Green Belt, to attract new businesses and encourage some existing users to move out of the centre.”
4.8 We fundamentally disagree with the concept that IF development is required within the Green Belt that this should be within one particular area. Our view is that all areas of Green Belt should be explored with a view to small pockets of development being accommodated.
Appendix 5. Identified Built Area Extension Option – Chesham (north on the Berkhamsted Road towards Ashley Green). This site of course is within the Green Belt which serves as a protection for Chesham [Green Belt purposes 1, 2, 3 and 4 (NPPF)]. Whilst the A416 is a major road entry point into Chesham, capacity issues have been referred to in the Housing section of this document. There is inadequate capacity to service this large extension with constraints for traffic through Ashley Green, access to the A41 and indeed at the junction of the A41 with the M25 where a proper flyover is already needed. Likewise the entry into Chesham down Nashleigh Hill and along Berkhampstead Road is a severe constraint now with attendant high levels of pollution. There will be other major infrastructure considerations to be addressed if indeed this site is considered further.
Question 6: Do you have comments on individual options generally or specific settlements/site options that could be part of these options?
• Option A. Agreed but surely this is three separate options, and will be subject to hierarchy assessment. • Option B. One of the least favoured options. ERASC areas should be protected almost as much as conservation areas, and expanded where warranted after critical contemporary assessment. • Option C. Agreed in principle but not Green Belt or the area in Appendix 2. • Option D. No comment • Option E. No comment • Option F. A least favoured option • Option G. Essentially a Green Belt review but different methodology to Arup. Another least favoured option. This has potential to further weaken protection afforded by the Green Belt and permit boundary creep now and in the future. • Option H. Similar comment as G. • Option I. No. This is contrary to Green Belt purposes 1, 2 and 3 (NPPF) • Option J. In Chesham, additional sustainable growth in built up areas close to the train station is possible without encroaching on Green Belt • Option K. By including so many choices in one employment Option the Council are emphasising the concentration on Housing in the Consultation process. Local employment and industry is an important consideration for Chesham.
17 As stated above The Chesham Society’s previously expressed view was “a new Business Park should be established on the periphery of the Town, preferably not in the Green Belt, to attract new businesses and encourage some existing users to move out of the centre”. Expansion of employment within the Town Centre is not sustainable. We would question whether the District Council should continue to rigorously pursue its ‘mixed use’ development policy when often there seems little evidence of employment need on a site and where, historically, these mixed use have led to conflict. Asheridge Road (CD0211) is a good example. • Option L. Not a question that will produce helpful answers. It is a catch-all and does not address question 5.
Question 7: Do you have comments on the suggested level of unmet needs in Chiltern/South Bucks?
It is noted that in discussions with Aylesbury Vale they may be asked “for 7,500 dwellings and supporting employment needs from Chiltern/South Bucks Districts”, which is about half the shortfall (13,195) identified in HELAA. There appears to be no information advising how the figure of 7,500 is arrived at. This potentially will have a major demographic effect resulting from many in the 25 to 50 year old age group leaving Chiltern and South Bucks and reducing the local workforce. This will be exacerbated by people working in London buying dwellings in Chesham because of lower house prices, a trend that has been seen since the Metropolitan Line was built. The result for Chesham could be a dormitory town with a lot of London commuters, a small local workforce and a large number of retired residents, resulting in an overloaded infrastructure (e.g. schools and medical care). This would appear to be an unsustainable local population model.
Not meeting unmet needs can only be met by Refusal to accept (unlikely to be achieved without extreme measures), building on the Green Belt (an easy target) or moving the need away from the locality (the Chancellor’s powerhouse in the North). This must be negotiated with extreme vigour as the current regional demographic model in unsustainable even within this Plan period.
4.12 The assumption that Aylesbury Vale is the only likely source of meeting unmet development needs is questionable when co-operation with Dacorum has not been apparently explored, let alone demonstrated. We are not aware of any discussions and there seems to be reluctance to even explore this option when simple geography is a compelling reason for consideration.
In the Chesham Society Vision 5 (February 2015) it said in part: “The proposal is to build a large Business Park on the old Bovingdon Airfield”. On reflection this is still valid for Chiltern (Chesham) and even for Dacorum; aybe even a mixed development site could be considered. This should not be dismissed as classic NIMBY reaction but rather a constructive suggestion for Chiltern and Dacorum to accommodate central government housing targets and give their existing towns the chance to build a sustainable future.
18 Question 8: Do you have any comments or suggestions on how the councils can meet its local affordable housing need?
The HEDNA identified need for Chiltern is 7,300 general housing including 1,100 to 2,000 affordable (15 to 28% of the general total). It is assumed that if Aylesbury Vale accepts 7,500 houses that the ratio between General and Affordable will not be changed. On an historical basis it appears that Chesham has accommodated a higher proportion of affordable housing – it has an higher proportion of low income communities such as Pond Park. Current housing figures in Chesham are: Tax bands A + B = 11.4% of 9366 houses (new build Nov 15 to Feb 16 = 38.8% of 49 houses) Tax bands A to C = 47.4% of 9366 houses (new build Nov 15 to Feb 16 = 61.2% of 49 houses) Average house price 2015 was £371,095 (Rightmove) These figures would appear to support that an affordability ratio of at least 25% may be achievable, but should be treated with caution and require more detailed analysis over a more extended time period. Current central government policies are putting severe constraints on housing associations and our major local provider, Paradigm, appears to be changing its housing policy accordingly.
The council must also take a much more active role in ensuring affordable housing is well designed, within mixed housing areas, in a desirable and accessible place to live, together with acceptable infrastructure. It must avoid a concentration of multi-storey blocks of affordable housing being tacked in the corner of new housing developments. Smaller blocks of not more than four houses should located within new developments. There is also a trade-off between cost and good design, the latter not automatically meaning high cost. The council must take an active role in development of new settlements, or indeed replacement of old housing stock, and adopt community driven development planning. These are especially relevant to Chesham and the indeed the Chesham Society’s “Vision of Chesham” espouses such a policy not only for its Town Centre proposal but also the rest of the built area in the town. In particular affordable housing must be close to the transport hubs and shops.
Question 9: Do you have any comments on the above options to meet the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople?
Option a) is supported. Option b) is supported, subject to the specific agreed policy on housing spatial options in the Green Belt and in particular the Arup segment analysis for the site under consideration. Option d) appears unlikely and arbitrary, particularly if this requirement would impact on the economic viability of providing affordable housing and other facilities. It may result in inappropriate geographic location of sites. Option e) should be pursued if sites are needed and selection criteria are consistent with agreed spatial options in particular in relation to the Green Belt. Option f) is dependent on demonstration of need and should be considered in the context of option b).
19 Option f) should of course be borne in mind when undertaking long term planning. The change in needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople with Chiltern District has not been great over the last ten years and indeed many of current occupants are not travelling and appear to be stable family and community groups.
Question 10: How do you think the Joint Local Plan can best meet specialist elderly accommodation needs, both in term of general and affordable needs?
6.3. By definition “larger housing developments” are likely to be remote from town centres and transport hubs. This also focuses on those requiring “specialist accommodation and requiring care”. Indeed this class of specialist accommodation may be need to be in relatively large units to make care running costs economic and thus remote, an unfortunate outcome.
However the needs of the elderly, who do not want or need to live in sheltered accommodation, but want to downsize to a smaller house, especially when family are not close by or a partner dies, are not considered. There is a substantial requirement and they will quite often need small affordable housing which they will probably own and it should be close to town centres with adjacent shopping, medical and entertainment facilities. This need is expanding rapidly with increased life expectancy and good health in old age.
There is also a sociological requirement to ensure old and young, often two or more generations, can live close together rather than remotely situated communities with similar age groups. This is very much the “continental model” and may be forced on the UK with councils no longer able to support care of the elderly.
Higher density housing in or near town centres addresses this is, and indeed this was a major consideration in the Chesham Society’s “Vision of Chesham”. There are significant opportunities to increase this class of housing by change of use on some current commercial sites close to the town centre (e.g. off Higham Road). There is also scope for suitable housing for the elderly within the “Vision of Chesham” proposal
6.4 The requirement for a proportion of elderly homes in affordable units is wrong. How can control be placed on who can buy an affordable unit, let alone achieve a sociologically acceptable mix? Such a directive is likely to further compromise supply with developers avoiding the sector. However there may be scope if “Build to Let” is considered for these “affordable houses” which of course opens the question of “what is affordable to whom”? The elderly may find this less of an issue, especially if downsizing.
Provision of affordable housing should not be dependent on planned market housing. Other considerations should apply eg Housing Associations.
20 Question 11: Do you have a view on the Heritage Strategy – for example views on our local heritage assets, how heritage contributes to quality of life and our sense of place and community?
We welcome the Chiltern and South Bucks Heritage Strategy (January 2016) and in particular the summary clause 10.1. This is a positive statement about the Council’s intent.
In the public survey we undertook during February 2015, responses to the questionnaire revealed there was very strong public support “for preserving the surrounding environment, the Old Town and Lowndes Park” and of course the Green Belt and AONB. This was near the top of residents’ priorities. This was further confirmed by this year’s Town Meeting break out groups (25.02.16). In summary their response was: “Perhaps unsurprisingly, potential encroachment on the Green Belt that encircles Chesham sparked passionate debate and comment. However objections to its use for residential development was not overwhelming. The protection and conservation of Chesham’s built environment, and heritage was also considered important.” We also note the summary list of assets clause 5.1 and in particular specific reference to the Chesham and Old Town Centre (areas extended and linked by the Chesham Town Centre and Waterside Local Plan 1987). At this stage we have not had the resource available to review and comment in detail, especially in reference to preservation.
In reference to the Chesham Society’s “A Vision of Chesham” Heritage was a key part of the brief to the architect and this has been uppermost throughout the preparation of the proposal. Conservation of the old town and heritage assets has been carefully considered, with the aim of making the Old Town, the High Street and Lowndes Park one contiguous area. This may indeed permit expansion of the Conservation Area.
We note that the Heritage Strategy will be reviewed alongside the Joint Local Plan with in part aiming to fill gaps in the Evidence base. This will be an ongoing task that our Society will contribute to.
Question 12: Are you aware of any currently unprotected local heritage assets that should be identified and if so why is the heritage asset important locally?
These are classified under two headings: Buildings, usually listed or in conservation areas: Chesham Cemetery chapel and buildings (19th century brick and flint faced), Friends Meeting House and the White Hill Centre. Other buildings suggested at the Town Meeting were the National School; Mineral Cottage, Liberty building.
Chesham High Street and the Old Town Conservation area. There are many historic buildings in these areas and indeed some are already Grade II listed Building status. However a thorough assessment needs to be undertaken for other buildings in these areas, and indeed the rest of the town, to determine which should be added to the asset register.
21 The ERASC list should also be updated. Only Stanley Avenue and Manor Way are currently listed. There are some fine examples of Victorian and Edwardian terraces in the town.
Landscape assets: • Chesham’s major natural asset is its location in the Green Belt and AONB that surround the town and is a typical example of the Chiltern Hills. This must be protected and is highly valued by the residents of Chesham with 75% saying it should not be built on (Town survey, February 2015). More specific landscape assets include: • The skyline which can be viewed from the High Street (east across Dungrove Farm and west across Lowndes Park). There are other valleys out of Chesham that should be preserved, the Latimer Valley being a prime example from Waterside to Chenies. • The River Chess and its subsidiaries, a rare chalk stream. • Lowndes Park. • Bury Lake – this is in private ownership (two owners) and adjoins the Old Town and Lowndes Park. If it ever came on the market or could be leased it would make a major logical extension to Lowndes Park. • Captain’s Wood which is managed now by the Chiltern Society – a fine example of beech woodland on a ridge adjoining Chesham. • Other examples can undoubtedly be proposed. These should be considered and actions prioritised.
Question 13: Local Green Space designations can be made as part of the Local Plan and so local residents, community groups and other local stakeholders are asked to identify areas that they would like to be considered. Importantly any nomination should include supporting evidence.
Local green space will be even more important when policies of denser town centre housing and with conversion of industrial brownfield sites to housing. Local green spaces should be within easy walking distances of all town centre housing. Houses close to the town periphery which will of course benefit from the Green Belt or AONB. Wherever possible new housing should be connected to a public footpath network to the countryside and town facilities and infrastructure. Current local green spaces include the Town allotment sites, Botley Field, Co-op Field, Nashleigh Recreation Ground, Berkhampstead Field and The Moor. The field below the SW corner of Lowndes Park which stretches down to Pednor Road. This was sold in small plots in a scam scheme before an article 4 was in place and stopped further subdivision in the Pednor Valley. This is totally overgrown with scrub but widely used by walkers being on a main footpath out of town to Herbert’s Hole. A compulsory purchase order should be considered and the area retained as extension to Lowndes Park.
22 Question 14: Do you have any nominations for Local Measures?
We are including “A Vision of Chesham” as the most significant Local Measure. This is a major proposal which the Chesham Society has initiated and should be viewed as a stand-alone item as well as in the context of this question. It is included as a separate major separate item in this Plan Response.
Question 15: Do you have a view on the scope of policies proposed in Appendix 7
• Settlement Hierarchy. This statement is not very clear. Does it mean the Council will be deciding the number of new dwellings appropriate for each settlement? • Infrastructure Delivery. As expounded at length previously in this Response, if development is only to proceed where it is served by essential infrastructure then it will be very late in the Plan period before we see any new development in Chesham. • Design. We would like to see emphasis placed on “high quality developments which, through their design, enhance the character and legibility of an area and reinforce local distinctiveness and identity”. • Development in the Green Belt. Noted that you are not even considering the possibility of adding to the Green Belt. The extent of the Green Belt is already defined and its permanence as a whole should not be examined again. • Affordable Housing Exceptions Policy. There are no circumstances to justify affordable housing in the Green Belt as an exception. • Extensions to Dwellings and Outbuildings in the Green Belt. A very rigorous policy is required. • Custom Build and Self Build Housing. A number of people have expressed interest in self build projects. • Specialist Elderly Person Accommodation. See answer to Question 10 • Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Proposals for sites should be judged against the same policies as others. • Chesham Employment Restructuring. This policy needs to be applied to a number of sites in the HELAA • Opportunity Proposal Sites. If this refers to Green Belt sites we disagree. • Town and Local Centres and Town Centre Uses. It is probably not surprising that we consider the best way of achieving this in Chesham is by way of a Town Masterplan. • Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The landscape and views around Chesham are an important part of the historic environment. • Biodiversity. It must not be forgotten that the Green Belt actively contributes to biodiversity. • Flood Protection and SuDS. Flood protection needs to be looked at on a Town wide basis. The impact of peripheral development on town centre conditions will not be fully understood until there is full mapping of all the watercourses in the area.
23 • Chesham Flood Alleviation Project. Measures for flood alleviation would form part of a Chesham masterplan and would then have a better chance of success, particularly with the Chesham culvert. • River Character and the Water Environment. Until the problems with the sewage treatment works are resolved the quality of water in the River Chess is going to remain a major issue. • Transport Impact from New Development. It must be recognised that because of Chesham’s situation at the head of a valley nearly all traffic from new development, even on the periphery of the Town, will pass through the Town Centre. As stated before a traffic survey followed by transportation improvements is required. • Parking Standards. The current assumption in Chesham that Town Centre developments do not require the provision of normal parking standards is unfounded and leads to further on street parking, congestion etc. It is a fallacy to presume that the proximity of limited public transport and local shopping negates the desire to own a car. • Community Facilities. We have identified enhancements to Community Facilities in our Vision document. Simply identifying sites will not deliver them. This will only be achieved through a Town Centre development. • Sports, Recreation and Leisure Facilities. Equally important to Community facilities. But again evidence of need and allocation of sites will not produce results. Developers need to be involved on a Town wide basis. • Local Measures. We expect our Vision of Chesham to be such a measure. • Public Open Spaces and Local Green Spaces. If we reach the unfortunate situation where Green Belt development is permitted, providing limited public open space within the development is poor compensation.
Question 16: Do you have any comments on the Settlement Infrastructure Capacity Study, infrastructure needs or issues and CIL?
We have made comments on Infrastructure above. Suffice to say here that the Report produced is full of red shading indicating lack of information. This clearly does not yet comply with Planning Practice Guidance and we expect considerably more information in the next consultation. Current Sustainability Policies would indicate that no further development can take place until numerous infrastructure measures are completed or at an advanced planning stage.
24 Question 17: Do you have any other points you would like the councils to take into account in the preparation of the Joint Local Plan? For example are there any challenges or opportunities you think the new Joint Local Plan will need to address?
We hope we have made it clear throughout this Response that we see the new Local Plan as an opportunity to improve the Town of Chesham into the future and welcome a proportionate number of new residents. Effectively this process can serve as a Neighbourhood Plan for the Town. However we strongly believe that this will not be achieved on an application by application basis, or identifying plots of land for new building, mainly by developers with a profit not planning motive.
The current gap between planning policy and the planning application process can only be filled with a Masterplan for the Town and we offer our “Vision of Chesham” as the basis of such a scheme.
Having invested significant amounts of time and money in our proposal thus far we hope and expect to be involved in appraisal and development of a scheme for the whole Town over the next few months.
25 “A VISION OF CHESHAM” Redevelopment of the Chesham Town Centre
The Chesham Society included eight Visions for the future of Chesham in its response to the Initial Consultation (regulation 18) Chiltern District Local Plan 2014 - 2036, dated 6 March 2015 (which is included as an appendix to this Chiltern & South Bucks Initial Consultation). The first two of these visions referred specifically to the Town Centre:
• Vision 1: St. Mary's Way will be replaced by a [by-pass or] underpass allowing the Old Town, New Town and Lowndes Park to be one
• Vision 2: This is a mixed development of the Star Yard car park to provide lower level parking (possibly underground), one level of flexible employment space used for shops, restaurants or small businesses to reflect current demands, with one or two floors of residential accommodation over. It should consist of an iconic new design that will make Chesham memorable. The building should blend in with the High Street and Conservation Area, permitting unrestricted flow of pedestrians between the High Street and Lowndes Park free of traffic and pollution, with high class restaurants and/or a pub overlooking the park (this will be a prime space in a large town which should attract high class lessees (e.g. Oakman, Weatherspoon and restaurant chains). This vision is contingent on Vision 1 being enacted.
In addition the Chesham Society conducted a survey of residents and the key findings, in summary, focussed on two major issues:
• Environment: Preservation of the surrounding Environment including the Old Town conservation area, Lowndes Park, green spaces and to renovate the High Street were all important, with 75% of respondents saying building houses on the greenbelt should not be considered and only 3% saying it should. • Infrastructure: There were wide ranging concerns about Infrastructure, with many well-known problems.
Furthermore many highlighted more intangible aspects including enjoying the Market Town atmosphere and the Vitality of the community. Quality of life was seen as important.
It was also significant that residents supported increased building density (near the town centre) and change of use of redundant employment sites to housing, but also with lower support for new housing on the edge of town.
26 These results strengthened the resolve of the Chesham Society to develop its vision for development of the Town Centre into a Proposal to be included in its Consultation Response to the new Local Plan. This was seen as an unique opportunity for Chesham to revitalise and regenerate the town centre through carefully planned growth and regeneration. The Plan Consultation also could in part fill the gap of a neighbourhood plan.
This was further underwritten by the HEDNA/HELAA assessment which calculated a shortfall and revised need of 13,195 houses which identified exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt.. Since Chesham is one of the three largest settlements in Chiltern, the Society surmised that Chesham may need to accommodate 1,000+ new houses. It acknowledges that no target has yet been set for Chesham and that this may not be revealed until the Preferred Options Consultation in October/November 2016.
However at this stage the Chesham Society sees a significant number of new houses as an opportunity for Chesham, provided (1) infrastructure is put in place prior to building new houses, (2) the Green Belt is not built on and (3) the town’s employment base is maintained.
This cannot be done without the development of the Town Centre.
The Chesham Society briefed Hugo Hardy Architects to produce a proposal based on: 1. Visions 1 and 2, but also taking account of Visions 3, 6, 7 and 8. 2. The town centre should be joined to Lowndes Park and the Old Town into one contiguous area 3. Substantial number of houses should be accommodated in the town centre, close to a transport hub. 4. Retail and commercial space should be increased. 5. New housing and retail will be needed to recoup new infrastructure costs. 6. Historic buildings must be retained. 7. Extending the Music and Arts facilities around the Elgiva, possibly relocating some uses from the White Hill Centre. 8. Open car parking space should be more effectively utilised. 9. It must be possible to see the Green Belt skyline on both sides of the town centre and the River Chess should also incorporated, at least in part, with the town Centre.
The Architect responded to this brief which was been further refined after discussions with the Chesham Society and Chiltern Chamber. The design was first displayed to Town and District councillors and Residents at the Town Meeting on 25 February. Views were sought on what was liked, what was not and what else should be included.
“A Vision of Chesham” must be considered in conjunction with the Chesham Society Response to the Plan Consultation.
27 The Town Centre Development is required if Chesham is going to accommodate over 1000 new houses within the current town boundaries and provide public facilities to support the increased population.. Likewise these extra houses are needed to generate funds to finance and construct this major development proposal. The Society is recommending that the District Council embraces this proposal as an economic development opportunity and as a catalyst for inward investment and re-connecting the town and providing enhanced infrastructure. Public sector funds will be required in part for horizontal infrastructure and more so for vertical integration – education, health, social services, care in the community etc, which of course will be required wherever the houses are built.
The development cannot be considered as a normal planning application. The whole town centre scheme will need to be handled by a Development Corporation with institution and developer funding to cover all phases of the work.
Design output:
3D digital map of Chesham town centre – current layout 3D model of Chesham town centre – new town centre proposal – new buildings incorporated into existing town layout Graphical representation on Powerpoint showing the design elements of the proposal: https://youtu.be/2JmNhDtsvFg Powerpoint presentation – architect explaining proposal: https://youtu.be/17DxyUGo-80 Video presentation, “A Vision of Chesham”: https://youtu.be/5nTs8OAwHoA Video: “A Vision of Chesham” – explanation of the scheme and architect explaining proposal
Consultation and evidence base Mail drop to 10,500 houses in HP5 post code – Public Meeting notice and Plan Consultation Press releases to media Chesham Society meeting – Cllrs Isobel Darby and Peter Hardy – CDC presentation – 65 attended Chesham Public meeting – about 150 attended – detailed comments from participants – included in plan response Video: “A Vision of Chesham” – shown at public meeting and on YouTube – 742 viewing to 10.03.16
28 APPENDIX 1
RESPONSES TO THE NEW LOCAL PLAN WORKSHOP HELD AT CHESHAM TOWN HALL, 25.02. 2016
The data in this document have been compiled by the Chesham Society, with special thanks to John Graves and Pat Hunt. These comments will be included in the Evidence Base of the Society’s response to the Local Plan initial consultation.
The data included in this document has been collated from the Post-It notes that were written by participants in the eight break-out groups at the meeting.
Responses have been re-sorted into subjects by doing word searches within the documents. Hopefully now the comments are more relevant to their subject groups. These subjects are not in some cases the same as the breakout group title. For instance, there was no group discussing infrastructure but not surprisingly this subject was frequently raised. Some of the comments have also been ‘tweaked’ simply in order to make sense of them. This constituted a degree of interpretation but in their original form they did not make much sense.
It is significant that 57 notes refer to Environment and Conservation (one group only), followed by 53 on Housing (two groups) followed by 34 on Community and 29 on the Town Centre Vision and 22 on Business. There were 11 on infrastructure and 22 on transport but neither of these were the subject of a specific group.
All data has been included and the actual comments are anonymous
Infrastructure
It was widely recognised that there could be no development (particularly in the case of new homes) without the necessary infrastructure in place, and that it would be a delicate and complex balancing act in providing the correct amount of amenities for a growing population. It was noted in particular that the building of around 1000 new homes would result in a corresponding increase in private and public transport, which was a major cause for concern. 1. Sustainability! No public transport to villages so unsustainable. Not complaint within NPPF. 2. Building above car parks in a limited way may be useful. 3. Should negotiate with neighbouring authorities. 4. Get people into Chesham. 5. Car Parks versus access to shops. 6. How should we encourage the use of town centre/brown field sites for housing – siting industrial areas on the outskirts. 7. Where should it [all the new development] go? 8. No mention was made about the redundant town centre. Build an Aldi there. 9. The Employment belt is nearly as large as Chesham town.
29 10. I know you said don’t talk about infrastructure but council has just sold and built on the old college! 11. Integrated housing and commercial. 12. [What will the] demographics of Chesham [be in] 2020-2040? 13. How many houses? Where located? New estates? Affordable but nice? Small gardens? How many shops needed? Extra schools? How can electricity, gas, water, sewers be provided?
Houses for Chesham
The prospect of building around 1000 new homes generated much feedback and debate, particularly regarding accommodation for the young (affordable housing for local people) and the elderly (sheltered/serviced accommodation). It was almost universally recognised that housing stock and parking needed to be considered as a joint issue, cars being seen as both a boon and a blight in the town.
1. Are we prepared to accept high density? 2. Level of density? 3. Prepared to accept 3 or 4 levels plus parking underneath. 4. Can have two, three, and four-storey town centre flats? 5. Probably need to be apartments with underground car parking. 6. What should be the proportion of solid housing? 7. Should new housing be in 1/2/3 clusters or split into smaller units. 8. Disperse housing across the district. 9. Many more one bed apartments needed. 10. How do you prevent developers building larger houses then disappearing without building affordable houses/ being very slow to build smaller, cheaper housing. 11. Need to keep new builds affordable. 12. Shortage of midsize family houses? 3 bedrooms? 13. Use land at bottom of Nashleigh Hill/ Vale for new housing. 14. Use other industrial sites eg Springfield Road and Asheridge Road for housing. 15. Utilise Bovingdon Airfield for Business Park and more houses. 16. Family housing – semi detached. 17. Need for retirement houses, warden assisted flats. 18. Need more retirement places with warden, garden. 19. What if the Government Guidelines cannot be met with regard to suitable land being available ie non green belt land? Are there always conditions regarding Social Housing imposed on any building application? It doesn’t really matter if there is a preference for a particular type of build? 20. Need for housing units that enable older people to downsize, freeing up family houses. 21. How do we attract elderly from their big houses? 22. Need for affordable (genuinely) for local people 23. Build affordable housing so my daughter and her partner can afford to move out of my house – please! 24. What about developing The Moor car park [for housing]? 25. Move Football ground to new sports area on The Moor. Develop ground and car park for houses.
30 26. Sighting of housing – Asheridge Road Valley – preserving landscape views.More small houses – traditional terraces? 27. [We need] two-three-bed terrace[s] for young professionals. 28. No high rise [development in Chesham]. 29. Don’t allow builders to build five-bedroom ‘luxury’ homes – they entice people out of London – doesn’t help local problem. 30. Medium density housing blocks of four-six storey flats are, electricity/energy saving, space saving, preserving green belt/recreation facility, environmentally friendly and not too tall/unsightly. 31. The nature of the housing stock greatly affects the nature of the Town. The Chesham housing stock is heavily biased towards social housing and small houses. This means that successful people move away and needy people move in. Build more larger houses. Rebalance the housing stock. 32. We need a progression of houses: small>medium>large to give a balanced population. 33. Lycrome Road is in the more county part (is it?) High rise wouldn’t look right. 34. Build housing over car parks. 35. No council houses in town centre – they are always messy. 36. If two or three storey flats or apartments are built of good quality and properly soundproofed then people may be more willing to live in them. Thus space is saved, neighbour noise eliminated and stress reduced. 37. Have a mixture [of housing]. High rise in centre. Must make provision for older folk. 38. Some ‘council’ estates could be redeveloped to get more housing eg Upland Avenue. 39. Build [homes] on several empty spaces. Springfield Road. 40. Need for affordable housing for young people. 41. Need more housing in town centre especially smallish private/affordable housing. 42. Use of eg Asheridge Road – Alcan site for housing. 43. High rise (four storey +) not acceptable in Chesham. 44. Fill in the triangles [ie undeveloped sites in Town]. [We do not want] one big estate. 45. What infilling can be achieved. 46. Spread allocation of housing across the town. 47. Infill [new housing] in villages. 48. To provide deliverable new housing such as down-size, starter homes and sheltered accommodation for an ageing community to stay in the area, there must be some smaller scale Green Belt review. 49. Affordable housing [is needed] in town centres. 50. Find other sites in town, build more densely. 51. There is some space in the residential areas that could be used [for new homes] instead. 52. Any number of houses could be put on Bovingdon airfield. Flat land, good links roads and closeness to jobs in Chesham and Hemel Hempstead. 53. How do we provide affordable housing stock for young professionals?
31 Transport
Public and private transport facilities closely connected and integrated within the town centre was seen as vital to the future prosperity of Chesham and the wellbeing of its residents. The importance of parking and public transport to the siting of new homes was strongly expressed in the responses group Homes for Chesham. Underground carparks seems to be a popular solution.
1. Where do people park cars? 2. Where do the cars go? 3. Bus services in/out of town for elderly? 4. Underground parking [would be a solution to wasteful carpark space]. 5. Install car parks underground (more car park spaces). 6. Install parking drop-off like at hospitals and airports. 7. There needs to be transport by housing! 8. St Mary’s Way [is] dangerous - tunnels. 9. Underground car parks [are needed in the town]. 10. Car Parks vs access to shops. 11. Public transport [needed] in town centre.
Town Centre Vision
The following comments were initial responses to The Chesham Society’s vision for Chesham Town Centre, the ideas for which were illustrated by a 3-D model drawn up by architect Hugo Hardy. Comments were facilitated by Councillor Alan Bacon who set them out into ‘Likes’, ‘Concerns’ and ‘Other Ideas’.
LIKES 1. Brilliant vision that needs embracing – turning Waitrose a bit like Rickmansworth. Design needs applauding. 2. Bringing the park into the town centre and creating one fluid civic space by converting St Mary’s Way and also reconnecting the old town is a good idea. 3. Plan looks great – like the idea of connecting the park to the town. 4. Brilliant idea to connect part of town with centre and old town. 5. I love the idea of connecting the areas that are at present separated by St Mary’s Way.
CONCERNS 1. TFL improvements. Train is slow and only one every half hour. Bring back the fast train. 2. Tunnel hides the town from the passing traffic. Just as the brick wall hides the town from sight now. 3. Will council want to maintain more green space. 4. How will the Vale brook be routed through the new area. It starts on side of St Mary’s Way and recrosses it to get to the Chess. 5. Culverts. 6. If the car park is by the NE end of Chesham, how does this bring people into the new space – they have to walk through town to get to it.
32 7. Car parking. Huge multi-storey car parks – 8. Linking a pedestrianised High Street with motorised Church Street? 9. Bringing the park to Star Yard seems to be a waste of space. 10. Danger that Lowndes Park will become urbanised. 11. White Hill centre view from other side of valley to be preserved. 12. Would ancient/interesting buildings be lost? 13. Fountains etc – too much maintenance – the district council has already cut down on footpath maintenance. 14. I find the plan to be very exciting but hope that interesting and architecturally valuable buildings will not be lost- as the lovely Market Hall. 15. Would be good to extend the tunnel if commercially viable. 16. Costs. 17. Share concerns about road access and potential congestion without additional capacity. 18. Will the NE car park overbear on the town? See the Waitrose in Rickmansworth. 19. Would there be huge multi-storey car parks? 20. Content of shops? Rental costs of shop (already too high) keeping the country towns failing?
OTHER IDEAS 1. Redevelop Chittendens to Nationwide. Homes above. Rear delivery access. 2. Rear delivery access to shops. 3. Relocate taxi rank. 4. A pedestrianised High Street without the shared use with vehicles. Plus total pedestrianisation of Market Square.
Environment and conservation
Perhaps unsurprisingly, potential encroachment on the Green Belt that encircles Chesham sparked passionate debate and comment. However objections to its use for residential development was not overwhelming. The protection and conservation of Chesham’s built environment, and heritage was also considered important.
1. Use of Green Belt should be considered in allocation and where best economic benefits are obtained. 2. Can 1000 houses be built without inroads to greenbelt? 3. Can infill/brownfield town centre sites be turned into flats? 4. Housing needs to be sympathetic to local style, not just standard developers’ format 5. Don’t object to housing but must be in the right place and of good design. Should reflect the character of the market town. 6. No more loss of old buildings. 7. Use unproductive fields – a green field is no great asset! 8. There is a large area in flood plains that should be avoided. Development should not increase flood risk. 9. [Can 1000 new homes be built] all within the valleys?
33 10. Maximum use [should be made] of brown field land. 11. Which bits of green belt can be built on? More expendable bits. 12. Use ‘scrubby’ green belt [for development]. 13. Lowndes Park, area attractive, water features [will unify] town centre. 14. Green Belt to stay as green belt. 15. Basically, Hands off. Releasing Green Belt is completely contradictory of the important concepts of ‘Living Landscapes’ – linked areas of wildlife interests. 16. Once you hint that Green Belt can be used all other options are forgotten, eg high rise, greater density. 17. Loss of Green Belt now creates precedent for future generations. 18. I live in area 13a. I currently see over 60 species of birds in my garden. Don’t want to lose the wonderful green belt. 19. Green Belt relieves views of built up areas. Don’t underestimate need for open areas of countryside/changes of scenery for mental health. 20. Green space has been identified as important for health. Need to recognise this in any release of Green Belt. 21. Ensure that any proposed development does not lead to argument for future development of all land between Chesham and Ashley Green. Will remaining farmland still be viable. 22. Retention of high quality Green Belt priority! Development of habitat spaces very important. 23. Waterside brown belt, not Lye Green Green belt. 24. Utilise brown field before spoiling all the Green Belt. I love Chesham because it’s surrounded by Green Belt. A park in the centre won’t compensate for loss of Green Belt. 25. Walking is healthy. Green Belt land is close to residential areas so people can walk there. Also we have a linked set of footpaths that would be disrupted. 26. We need good Green Belt land for ‘Food Security’. 27. Green Belt land should never be used for housing or industry. 28. Change of use even with ‘pockets of development’ in Green Belt will result in further development. 29. Prioritise previously developed sites and anomalies before green field sites. 30. If 1000 dwellings can be built without infringing on Green Belt why would you EVER build on Green Belt? 31. There is a need to retain green areas for horse riders and cyclists and walkers. We have fewer bridleways and the roads are dangerous. 32. Scrap Green Belt. 33. Scrap the green belt. 34. What is the evidence that green belt is needed. HEDNA report does not indicate this. 35. The Green Belt was decided around Chesham many years ago (1970s) It is time it is reviewed to accommodate the housing needs for starter homes, downsize and homes for older people. 36. Illogical – Green Belt boundaries are out of date. Needs review. Small development around edge of town. 37. There are anomalies that serve no strong Green Belt function – and should be removed from the Green Belt to provide much needed housing.
34 38. If development is needed on Green Belt it could be acceptable to locals if housing density is kept to moderate levels and houses are separated by green squares, paths and gardens. 39. Any development on the edge of AONB should be graduated so that the quality of the AONB is not visually or audibly degraded. 40. Use of scrubby bits of Green Belt should be used together with infilling wherever possible. 41. More exploitation of Green Belt area for tourist/ leisure/recreational activities. 42. If Green Belt must be changed, Area 13 should be used for community: 2 x schools, soccer field, cricket, athletics and public park. 43. How can we test the assumptions that have allowed the release of Green Belt? 44. Can see no objection to 13a development. 45. Develop smaller sites over large ones to lessen the impact and encourage variety in styles to maintain the character in the Green Belt. 46. Use sites from the March 2013 ‘Study of minor potential green belt alterations’ which details 35 sites which are all anomalies in the green belt. 47. Not too much pollution. Downward lights. 48. Protect views from built up areas, eg Chess Valley, Pednor. 49. Why is it better to ‘green’ the town centre and ‘brown’ the Green Belt? 50. Any number of houses could be put on Bovingdon airfield. Flat land, good links roads and closeness to jobs in Chesham and Hemel Hempstead. 51. How do we provide affordable housing stock for young professionals. 52. Agricultural and farming land should remain in the Green Belt 53. By all means test for need of Green Belt for housing/employment. But without assumption that areas to be considered are not of use as green belt/farm land. 54. Register of listed buildings [in the area] 55. [There should be a ] survey of listed buildings – see the gaps. 56. Flag up [and identify] old buildings with plaques. 57. Churches [are important].
Business and commerce
Most recipients recognised the importance of encouraging new businesses to the area and their siting within the town, or close to it. It was acknowledged that Chesham has lost businesses over the years to its detriment. There was also concern about the health of the High Street and about what could be done to increase its profile and sustained use.
1. Industrial estate next to The Moor – re-house businesses to other side of town and re-develop for housing? 2. Ashley Green area [should be] developed as modern enterprise zone. 3. More people in Chesham would support better/more retail outlets. 4. Conference hotel needed – brings money for spending into Chesham. 5. Destroy and build on disused commercial premises – brown field sites. 6. Move business to outskirts and build on these vacated sites.
35 7. Raising economy. 8. Encourage economy [by building a] conference hotel. 9. Employment needs could be met by re-examining the current business estates eg Asheridge Road Estate is never filled. 10. Do not build an industrial or business park over Ashley Green down to Nashleigh Hill the size of Chesham! Develop Bovingdon airfield instead. Don’t recreate Slough here! 11. Shops to be revitalised. 12. Revitalise High Street with more diverse shops and businesses through [reduction in] rates [and] taxes or relief. More vibrant and attractive. 13. Reduce traffic flow and provide alternatives by providing industry and smaller commercial units for start-ups and expansion away from High Street. 14. Many offices changing to housing. 15. Attract a large business [community]. 16. Smaller businesses [needed for area]. 17. Rates and taxes, or relief. 18. Develop industry at existing areas such as Asheridge Road. 19. Advertising [for local area]. 20. Local support [for] business. 21. Integrated housing and commercial [sites]. 22. Chesham is a market town - encourage more ‘pop-up’ shops for arts and crafts, and local produce.
Community
It was implicitly recognised that Chesham benefits from a large range of local amenities for the community to enjoy and facilities for socialising. There was concern that these amenities need to be protected and that there should be opportunities for expanding and developing them in the Local Plan.
1. Who are the new residents? Refugee intake? Locals? 2. Medium density is only really suitable in the town centre. 3. The current option in the CDC and SBDC plan is too large and in the wrong place – it is unsustainable. Some smaller development within the town and around the settlement is better for the community. 4. The proposed commercial building area towards Botley would mean we could lose the public playing fields and green space. This area is an important and well-used park for local residents. Indeed the children’s play area is due for renovation in Spring 2016. 5. Create a vibrant and interesting environment. 6. Maintain, enhance and preserve [our assets], Lowndes Park, Elgiva, White Hill Centre, The Moor, outdoor swimming pool and allotments. 7. Sports [facilities should include} all weather pitches, cycle access to town centre, more gyms and fitness centres, and outdoor [exercise] spaces. 8. Find ways of funding community centres and library and use them more, or we’ll lose them. 9. Use Baines Walk for a purpose-designed gallery etc. 10. Elderly community need somewhere local to meet regularly.
36 11. Facilities for the elderly [should include] creative activities, swimming, walking, support for carers, dog walking, singing for the brain, day care centre, residential homes, and allotments. 12. [Develop and maintain] footpaths. 13. [Ensure that} Bury Festival [continues]. 14. Green spaces for walkers, outdoor play and dogs. 15. Bridlepaths/safe off-road access for horse riders. 16. [The following community assets should be developed, supported and/or maintained] - Carnival Day, Tennis Club, U3A, Chesham in Bloom, Environment Group, youth centre/youth club, Stags Rugby for boys, football ground and boys’ and girls’ training [facilities], cricket ground, Dementia Friends, and creative activities. 17. [Develop] safe family cycling route. 18. Decent play equipment for the Nash Recreation Ground. 19. New allotments should be built for new houses as part of the development. 20. A new ‘old’ cinema like The Rex at Berkhamstead. 21. Can Elgiva Theatre encourage more local groups to use it? Reduce costs etc. 22. Encourage Elgiva’s use as an Arts Centre, bring more tourism into town. 23. More development of Elgiva and make facilities easier to use for other groups. 24. The Elgiva should be more connected to the Town Centre to encourage new users. 25. More activities to develop/utilise free time. 26. Improve accessibility [at the Elgiva Theatre]. 27. Art exhibition [at the Elgiva Theatre]. 28. Lowndes Park [should be used more regularly for] music, picnics, etc. 29. Refurbishment of toilets in Lowndes Park. 30. Friends of Lowndes Park. 31. Support fundraising events [in aid of] White Hill Centre eg go to the Quiz Night. 32. Perhaps modernise White Hill Centre to cater for easy access, parking. 33. Chesham town centre needs rejuvenating as it is a ghost town at night. 34. We need a community hall that can be used for a wide variety of events, on a non-profit basis, by all age groups and managed by local people.
37 APPENDIX 2
THE CHESHAM SOCIETY RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL PLAN INITIAL CONSULTATION (REGULATION 18) CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN 2014 - 2036
PART A PERSONAL DETAILS
Are you:
An organisation Other
Personal Details* Agents Details (if applicable)
Title Mr First Name Tony Last Name Molesworth Job Title Chairman (if applicable) Organisation The Chesham Society (if applicable) Address Staddlestones Barn Pednor Road Chesham Bucks HP5 2JU
Telephone Number 07785 501499 Email Address [email protected]
*if an agent is appointed, please complete only the title, name and organisation boxes but complete the full contact details for the agent.
38 PART B – COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Chesham is the third largest settlement in the Chilterns. It is an ancient market town situated in a valley with a rare chalk stream, the River Chess, running through it. It has a mixture of very old and new houses, residential and commercial areas intertwined and with good transport connections to London and the South East. It is a multicultural town with a strong community spirit. Household numbers in Chiltern District are projected to rise from 38,000 in 2014 to 43,000 in 2036, a 13% increase over the period. Chesham must expect to accommodate a reasonable proportion of these but first we must ensure the town becomes an even more attractive place to live in and that its infrastructure can cope with this projected increase in population and housing. At present the town is scarcely coping with its existing housing numbers – infrastructure is not of sufficient capacity and there are many indicators that quality of living in the town is declining, albeit from a high level.
Preparation of the new Local Plan gives us the opportunity to take an imaginative and inspirational view of what Chesham should look like in 2036 to make it a preferred town to live and work in. We need to formulate a Vision for Chesham by “putting Chesham first”. This vision must embrace the environment we live in, leisure and recreation, employment and business, infrastructure and housing. The Chesham Society has eight Visions for the future of Chesham over the next twenty years. All these are achievable, each requiring significant extra resource and investment, some more than others. None can be achieved unless they are included in the Local Plan and planning resource is allocated.
It is not an option for Chesham to be allocated a significant proportion of the 5,000 extra houses to be built in the Chilterns by 2036, as required by central government, and dictating where these extra houses will be placed, without first agreeing a vision for the town. Our residents already have firm ideas about what Chesham should look like in the future.
39 THE VISION
The Chesham Society proposes eight Visions for what Chesham should be aspiring to achieve during the twenty year period of the new Local Plan. These are specific to Chesham and should be agreed at the outset before accepting the number allocated and placement of new houses. Infrastructure requirements and implementation plans must also be agreed before housing targets are agreed. Most of the proposed Visions impact on Infrastructure.
Vision 1
St. Mary's Way will be replaced by a by-pass or underpass allowing the Old Town, New Town and Lowndes Park to be one contiguous area permitting free movement between shopping, recreation and residential areas.
Vision 2
This is a mixed development of the Star Yard car park to provide lower level parking (possibly underground), one level of flexible employment space used for shops, restaurants or small businesses to reflect current demands, with one or two floors of residential accommodation over. It should consist of an iconic new design that will make Chesham memorable. The building should blend in with the High Street and Conservation Area, permitting unrestricted flow of pedestrians between the High Street and Lowndes Park free of traffic and pollution, with high class restaurants and/or a pub overlooking the park (this will be a prime space in a large town which should attract high class lessees (e.g. Oakman, Weatherspoon and restaurant chains). This vision is contingent on Vision 1 being enacted.
Vision 3
The greatest asset that an historic market town can probably have is a river or stream. Chesham is one of the very few towns that has a chalk stream, an internationally rare and threatened habitat, branching into and meandering through the town. The River Chess must be prized. The branch from the Pednor Valley through the old town to Waterside and on to the Chess Valley has been partially restored through Meades Water Gardens. The initial vision is to provide a public access community and tourist trail from the lower end of Pednor Road all the way to the Latimer Road and thence join the Chess Valley walk. It should provide walking and cycling access for residents and tourists with picnic, leisure areas, community orchards and allotments adjoining and also overlooked by houses and businesses where appropriate. The branch of the River Chess running from Vale Road and through the town centre could also be developed, requiring much more investment and substantial reduction of water abstraction from the Hawridge pumping station. The underground culvert must be replaced under the High Street soon, at high expense, and this presents a window of opportunity.
40 Vision 4
A new Business Park should be established on the periphery of the Town, preferably not in the Green Belt, to attract new businesses and encourage some existing users to move out of the centre. This employment space would facilitate the release of redundant employment sites and brownfield land within the town central and surrounding area for housing whilst satisfying the concerns about loss of potential long term employment requirements. This raises the possibility of easing congestion and pollution on the town's access roads as some traffic would be diverted to the peripheral site. New denser housing could be built to meet the needs especially of younger and older residents and with easy access to public transport.
We are aware of a number of existing employers in Chesham who are seeking to expand and thus might move to a new development, the only alternative being that they leave Chesham. We are currently holding on to old employment sites in the misguided belief that they might one day be re-occupied. The reality is that they are unsuitable for current needs.
Vision 5
This is an alternative to Vision 4 or could be an extension of it. The proposal is to build a large Business Park on the old Bovingdon Airfield. This is a large flat, substantially brownfield and underused old defence site. It is only three miles from Chesham High Street and one mile from the A41 dual carriageway. It is ideal for commercial development with excellent transport connections. It is of course in Hertfordshire but Chiltern District Council is duty bound to consult and work with adjoining councils, albeit at least as far as housing placement.
Whilst this is not adjoining to Chesham it would be very easy to set up bus services between the employment and residential areas in Chesham and it would relieve pressure on the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty surrounding Chesham.
Vision 6
Chesham is promoted as a centre for Music and the Arts. There is already a significantly higher than average population of artists and musicians in the Town (two thriving music shops, several drama groups, three male voice choirs and about ninety resident musicians), many of whom work and/or perform in London. This Vision can be facilitated by allocation of space for expansion of the Elgiva facilities, for example by providing a second auditorium/cinema and accommodation for rehearsing, recording and teaching.
There is not enough space in the Elgiva and surrounds, even if the Albany car park is used, which would seem unwise. However it could be expanded by using the adjacent old buildings owned by the Bucks County Council and occupied by the Youth Club and Sea Scouts. These are old buildings with no historic merit and not in a good state of repair. The occupants would need to relocate to more suitable facilities close by.
41 This proposed Music and the Arts Centre could also possibly be relocated to the development proposed in Vision 2 or to a new location close to the High Street. There is a substantially under-developed area between The Backs, Station Road and the Broadway. This could be developed for a multi-purpose use including the Music and the Arts and a proposed hotel, an asset also requested by some residents.
Vision 7
There is the need for a new multi-purpose recreation and sporting complex, including the facilities already in the Chesham Leisure Centre (swimming pool, gym, indoor courts and sports hall) but adjacent outside additional facilities including hard surfaces, pitches and a Track and Field Facility with an eight lane all weather running track. This should be situated adjacent to and part of an existing facility if possible to enable sharing of services and staff. Possible sites include the Chesham Leisure Centre and school playing fields, The Moor Gym and Swim and the Moor for playing fields, The Chiltern Hills Academy and playing fields. All of these have possible limitations but should not be ruled out. A new purpose-built facility will inevitably need to be built on the edge of town, due to the area required, and may need to be situated in green belt.
Vision 8
The Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty must be preserved and enhanced. This is not so much a vision as a necessity. Accepting that some minor rationalisation of boundaries is required where land has already been developed, the vast majority must be maintained to preserve the character of the Town. Being set in a valley it is often possible while shopping to look around the adjoining slopes and see cows grazing, something unique to a town the size of Chesham.
It is equally important to preserve the Old Town and other heritage buildings within the Town and Lowndes Park which enhance the attraction to tourists.
42 THE TOWN SURVEY
Chiltern District Council will be aware that the Chesham Society has conducted an extensive consultation within Chesham from which the above Visions have, in part been formulated. A survey was delivered to about 9,500 households in Chesham, and also made available on the Chesham Society website. One hundred and thirty seven responses were received before the deadline. Most responses included multiple replies to all questions (including Q6 – “What is the one thing most important to you?”), so the totals recorded exceed the number of responses.
Two issues emerged as the key issues namely The Environment and Infrastructure.
Environment – The survey shows overwhelming support for preserving the surrounding environment, the Old Town and Lowndes Park (Q1b, Q6), with 103 of the 137 responses opposing development in the green belt and AONB (Q4b), with a strong preference for development on Industrial and Brownfield sites (Q3, Q4a). The environment was the top issue in the questions relating to Q1a What to change renovate the High Street), Q1b What to preserve (the surrounding countryside, the Old town buildings, Lowndes Park and other green spaces and the atmosphere of the town), Q4b Should sites on the Green Belt be considered for housing (75% an absolute No), and Q6 “What is the one thing for the future development of Chesham that is most important to you (62% of all replies). Environment invoked the most passionate responses which cannot be ignored.
Infrastructure – this ranked second with it appearing in questions about (Q1a) what to change (provide more leisure facilities, (Q1b) what to preserve (existing leisure facilities, (Q2) Key infrastructure issues (Flood control, sewage, more leisure facilities), Roads and transport, including road maintenance, parking and traffic congestion).
Concerns about Roads and Transport head the list of things which residents would like to change (Q1a) and of Infrastructure concerns (Q2). Road Maintenance and parking are the leading infrastructure concerns, by a narrow margin over flooding and the sewage treatment works (Q2), even though the flooding and sewage problems are more localised than the traffic problems which afflict the entire district. The figures for Traffic Congestion, bus and train services in Q2 reflect the scale of this problem.
Schools and Health facilities head the list of Social issues raised. One reply to Q6 asked that infrastructure improvements be made before any additional housing was built, a view which the society endorses.
In all, 380 issues were raised in reply to question 2, showing the level of concern regarding the infrastructure of the Town. This confirms the representations made by the Chesham Society during the preparation and Examination of the DDPD. Suffice it to say all of the concerns still exist particularly concerning sewage disposal, flooding, congestion, pollution and abstraction. New development continues but despite assurances that utility providers have an obligation to keep pace with and provide for expansion, there is no evidence of any improvement works or indeed planning.
43 Support to business and employment – this was addressed in a separate question with Rate relief for business scoring the highest by far, followed by Lower parking charges and then Promotion of Chesham and a new enterprise zone.
Spatial strategy - item 2.10 in the CDC Consultation Document – the specific poll responses were: Change of use of employment sites to housing with potential loss of jobs 30% Increased building densities e.g. higher flats 24% New sites on the edge of town 21% Mix of all three above 25%
In addition when asked “Should sites on the Green Belt be considered?” 75% said No and 3% Yes, the balance saying “no but” or “exceptionally, last resort”.
Although not strictly a planning issue, residents are seeking improvements to bus services to surrounding villages and improved faster train services to London. There is much more detail in the responses and a summary of 137 replies is included in this submission and appears below. The full results may be found on our website - http://www.cheshamsociety.org.uk/Campaigns/LocalPlan/Analysis.pdf. Scanned copies of all surveys will be supplied to CDC Planning in the near future (a confidentiality statement covers sharing of this information with CDC).
In addition to these specific survey findings, The Chesham Society is keen to see growth in Chesham Town Centre and an increase in "vitality" - a word used by many respondents to our questionnaire. There is a misguided priority given to seeking new housing sites around the edge of the Town. Relocating employment uses to peripheral sites will be more effective by releasing land for housing in a far more sustainable location. People in favour of residential use of vacant accommodation above shops and also accommodation for older people near the centre (they do not want to be in Retirement Homes!). 2.9 (vi) of the Consultation refers to protecting and improving the quality of life. In the rush for meeting the demands that might be established for business, housing etc. it is hoped the existing population and what they enjoy will not be ignored. The recent Examination of the DDPD was effectively hijacked by vested interests promoting the development of their own land. Proper attention must be given to the existing population who will still comprise the majority even by 2036.
44 RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS IN CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSULTATION
Question 1: Taking the Core Strategy Vision as a starting point, do you consider this remains valid in the District to 2036 and if not what changes do you think are needed or what issues do you think a revised Vision should take into account?
This vision still remains valid as a whole for Chiltern District (indeed for the whole country) and Chesham in particular. Whether it is possible to equally treat and implement twelve separate vision statements must be questioned – focus and prioritisation should be considered.
Question 2: Taking the objectives in the Core Strategy as a starting point, do you consider they remain valid or what issues do you think should be taken into account?
These objectives are in general still valid but it must be recognised that implementation of some are not directly related to planning issues (e.g. points 4 and 5). The number of new houses to be built in Chesham must relate directly to the demographic age profile of the town and employment status of the residents (points 1, 2 and 7), which will differ from Chiltern District as a whole, rather than a proportional allocation based on existing house numbers or a perceived profile of the town. No new allocation of housing can be accepted without a clear commitment to upgrade infrastructure prior to new building. Furthermore once an allocated number of houses is determined, it must then be established whether these can be fitted within the current town boundaries without encroachment on the Green Belt or AONB. Recent Planning Policy Guidelines do not regard lack of space as a presumed reason to permit building on the Green Belt.
Question 3: What challenges or opportunities do you think the new Local Plan will need to address?
These are addressed in our Visions of Chesham
Question 4: What spatial strategy options do you think the Council should consider and what option do you think is the right option for Chiltern? Are there any other options that the Council should consider?
Survey results for Chesham show the residents preferences for new building sites to be: Change of use of employment sites to housing with potential loss of jobs 30% Increased building densities e.g. higher flats 24% New sites on the edge of town 21% Mix of all three above 25%
45 In addition when asked “Should sites on the Green Belt be considered?” 75% said No and 3% Yes, the balance saying “no but” or “exceptionally, last resort”.
With regard to Chiltern as a whole and Section 2.10 of the Consultation, the Chesham Society believes that the District Council will have to include a combination of all options listed to meet development needs arising in the Plan period.
It is unlikely that the needs of Chesham and the needs of the rest of Chiltern will coincide closely. Houses in Chesham are generally smaller than the rest of the District and the proportion of socially rented housing much higher than the Chiltern average. The proportion of minority ethnic groups is significantly higher in Chesham than the rest of the District.
The opportunity should now be taken to rebalance the demographic of Chesham, certainly not to exaggerate it further.
Question 5: Do you have any information or a view on the need for specific types of development or infrastructure in Chiltern to 2036 that the Council should be aware of in preparing its new Local Plan?
The resident survey gives specific information on this relating to infrastructure. Our Visions are specifically relevant to this question.
Question 6: Do you have any other information or views that you would like the Council to take into account in the preparation of its new Local Plan?
Our Visions are specifically relevant to this question.
46 SUMMARY AND ACTIONS
The Chesham Society actively sought the views of the residents of Chesham prior to responding to the Chiltern District Local Plan initial consultation. It circulated, in conjunction with Chesham Town Council a questionnaire to be mail dropped to all households in the HP5 post area, thus directly involving a wide spectrum of Chesham’s population. This was in part successful with over 139 questionnaire replies being received so far, but it is disappointed that it was not able to reach all the groups in the town, including ethic minority groups and younger members of the community, especially school children. The surveys completed will all be scanned and supplied to CDC Planning soon after the close of the Consultation.
It is to be hoped that CDC can incorporate our Visions into the "Issues and Options" which it will be producing. We also hope that the Society will be given the opportunity to engage with CDC officers over the coming months to develop some or all of our proposals.
The Chesham Society will be circulating the results of the questionnaire survey, the conclusions it reached and the Visions that it has produced. It will further engage with Chesham community to develop the proposed Visions with the aim that some or all of these can be implemented during the Plan period.
The Chesham Society thanks Chesham Town Council and Chesham Action Partnership for supporting the Questionnaire mail drop and Public Meeting, Chiltern District Council Councillors and Planning Officers who participated in Meetings, the financial support of the Chiltern Chamber, and members of the public who attended meetings and replied to questionnaires.
APPENDIX 3
DVD – VIDEO “A VISION OF CHESHAM”
DVD - VIDEO FILES “A VISION OF CHESHAM” Design Brief and Design Components
https://d.docs.live.net/5977191437f28413/Plan response March 2016/Reg18ConsultationResponse MERGED FINAL 120316.docx
47